Ohh wow, and how would Apple benefit from OSS Cocoa and its Apps? I mean OSS operating systems are doing sooo well with 1% market share...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Psystar Halts Sales of Mac Clones, Plans Legal Appeal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ohh wow, and how would Apple benefit from OSS Cocoa and its Apps? I mean OSS operating systems are doing sooo well with 1% market share...
We were both just correcting your factual error; neither of us drew any conclusion about the advisability of open sourcing the OS.
But Mac OSX is open source. DarwinOS is the Project Name. Your double standards are amazing. Linux could completely have a closed source Userland and you'd still call it opensource.
BTW Camaier, he did. How about you read the entire conversation for once.
1) i read the entire conversation
2) Mac OS X is not open source. Stop saying that. There's a huge difference between the kernel being open source and the OS being open source. And no one would call linux open source if the userland was closed source - we'd call the kernel open source. Darwin and Mac OS X are two different things.
3) what double standards? Software is open source if all the code that comprises it is open source. Otherwise only portions of it are open source. And it is wrong to call proprietary software open source, because it's not. Precise and correct language is not a double standard.
No it is not. The Darwin Kernel is open source. Mac OS is closed and proprietary. They are two very different things.
From Wikipedia:
Using open source material does not make the entire project open source.
Parts of OS X are open source. Some really, really important parts, however, are not (particularly the GUI.)
Refer to Apple's OS X EULA, the "open source" descriptions is particular.
http://www.opensource.apple.com
It's a mixture of open source and proprietary software.
Yea right, your post said otherwise. Otherwise you would of called the suggestion of OSS Mac OSX.
Read that first part again, you're confusing yourself. Mac OSX IS OPEN SOURCE. It has Cocoa LAID UPON IT. I can REMOVE the Cocoa layer and replace with QT and something like KDE if I really wanted too.
Thats not actually true. Linux is called opensource even though it has Binary blobs in the kernel. Haiku is OpenSource even though it has binary blobs from Be Inc.
Even by the proper definition of an OS Mac OSX is opensource. By the slang term, its not. You are using the slang.
"An operating system (OS) is an interface between hardware and user which is responsible for the management and coordination of activities and the sharing of the resources of the computer that acts as a host for computing applications run on the machine. As a host, one of the purposes of an operating system is to handle the details of the operation of the hardware. This relieves application programs from having to manage these details and makes it easier to write applications. Almost all computers (including handheld computers, desktop computers, supercomputers, video game consoles) as well as some robots, domestic appliances (dishwashers, washing machines), and portable media players use an operating system of some type.[1] Some of the oldest models may, however, use an embedded operating system that may be contained on a data storage device."
Then it's not OS X. It's MorpgingDragon OS. Some key parts of OS X are proprietary. Substitute anything else . . . and you end up with something else.
You are being nonsensical. Mac OS X is the trademarked brand name for a particular collection of code. That collection of code is not open sourced. End of story. Darwin is darwin, and Mac OS X is Mac OS X. You cannot call Darwin "Mac OS X" because it's not. I don't care whether Darwin is an operating system or not (and it's not). Even if it was, you said Mac OS X is open sourced. And no matter how many times your demonstrate your inability to grasp a simple issue with a binary solution, it's not open sourced.
The kernel is open source.
The user interface and all the applications that come with OS X are not.
Apple does maintain some open source projects, but most everything aside from the kernel is closed source. For instance, WebKit is open source. The Safari browser itself is not. The Finder, Spotlight, the entire GUI, and most (if not all) of the apps that come with the OS are closed source. These key components make "OS X" what it is. Without them, you've got a BSD-based Unix OS of some kind with very little, if any, resemblance to OS X. So in other words, it's not OS X.
Not much of what we consider "OS X" is open source - it's mostly underlying things (like the kernel or the the SMB client/server, etc.)
If you doubt this, simply call Apple and ask them or read Apple's EULA regarding this. And you can also refer to the courts for recent decisions regarding this issue.
The user interface and all the applications that come with OS X are not.
Apple does maintain some open source projects, but most everything aside from the kernel is closed source. For instance, WebKit is open source. The Safari browser itself is not. The Finder, Spotlight, the entire GUI, and most (if not all) of the apps that come with the OS are closed source. These key components make "OS X" what it is. Without them, you've got a BSD-based Unix OS of some kind with very little, if any, resemblance to OS X. So in other words, it's not OS X.
Not much of what we consider "OS X" is open source - it's mostly underlying things (like the kernel or the the SMB client/server, etc.)
If you doubt this, simply call Apple and ask them or read Apple's EULA regarding this. And you can also refer to the courts for recent decisions regarding this issue.
Just to clarify a bit further, Darwin is open source, as we know. You can probably install X11 on it and use it as a standard Unix OS with any window manager and desktop environment you wish. Except Apple's.
If you do this, you've got a Unix operating system of some kind. But not OS X.
If you do this, you've got a Unix operating system of some kind. But not OS X.
Looks like it. After selling only a laughable 768 units, there's not a huge market for fake Macs.
Dude, just the fact that you wrote "would of" instead of "would've" completely invalidates your argument.
Dude, just the fact that you wrote "would of" instead of "would've" completely invalidates your argument.
Even with the correct "would've" I don't understand his sentence.
Dude, just the fact that you wrote "would of" instead of "would've" completely invalidates your argument.
Its slang... duh...
I'm not secretly drunk... after a University welcome party... >.>
No, it's not. It's just wrong. Why would a slang term for "would've" be "would of?" It's the same number of letters.
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/couldof.html
Yeah, Apple must have spent a ton on legal expenses for every one of the 900 computers Psystar sold. Innovation!
Which begs the question, why did Apple spend tens of thousand of dollars in legal fees for every Psystar sold?
Either Psystar was a threat to Apple's business by selling less than a thousand somputers or they weren't and Apple is just another control freak, corporate bully with $35 billion in the bank.
So which was it?
Neither. You forgot option C which is that Psystar was a business set up for no other purpose but to infringe on Apples legal copyrights lest they affect Apple financially directly or indirectly. To put it plainly, Psystar was guilty of a civil crime and was far more threatening than anybody else and Apple is the only company that can legally go after them? They are a threat because they prevent Apple from getting money that they are entitled under the law to have. The only reason that it costs so much is that the legal process is very expensive and Psystar played dirty. It only cost Apple about a million bucks - thats nothing.
There is no right, wrong, or bullying. This is a legal issue plain and simple.
To protect their trademarks and copyrights. This was about the continuing integrity of Apple's IP rights. And Apple's IP rights are at the core of their business model.